From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:20:02 -0800 (PST)
To: declan@pathfinder.com
Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
Message-ID: <199702052220.OAA05804@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
> Adam writes:
> 
> >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the
> >absolutism of free speech.  Free speech in electronic media, with
> >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to
> >truly free speech yet.
> 
> I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The
> Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies
> regarding what information they print; these policies increase the
> publication's value.

Their policies impose the editors and owners biases on the
publication.  If people value their publication they buy it.  The
average quality of the articles is higher than a discussion group --
the authors spend longer writing the articles, and the best articles
are selected by the editors.  Unsuprising.  The articles are probably
biased towards the editors or owners politics.

> Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the
> National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their
> newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms?

A newsletter is not a discussion forum.  Editorial control of a
newsletter is not moderation of a discussion group.  The cypherpunks
list is a discussion forum.  It's the electronic equivalent of people
talking amongst themselves about crypto issues in free time at CFP, or
a crypto conference.

> What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is
> polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's
> the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a
> public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down.

Dimitri's opinions aren't threatening anything.  If you aren't
interested in what he says don't read his articles.  If you disagree
with what he says, argue against it.  Subscribe to or start filtering
services (rating services) reflecting your views.

Personally I think something useful could be done with a content
digested form of cypherpunks with ratings, and pointers to the actual
posts.

Things like:

+ a thread on the experiment moderation, discussion from John Gilmore,
  Tim May, and others (hypertext ref)

+ series of latest ascii art and insults

+ new crypto developments in article forwarded by JYA

+-+ discussion of new crypto developments, and Lucky offers a bet

Would take a fair amount of effort from someone to produce a running
commentry of cypherpunks discussions to provide a higher level index
in to cypherpunks.

The price of unconditional free speech is that people will say things
which you personally don't agree with, however libertarian you are.

The only thing to do is to ignore stuff you don't like, or argue
against it, if you say, no this is too crap, or too worthless, then
you've started on the slippery slope.  It is the same principle that
protects your own freedom of expression.

It is worth bearing in mind that cypherpunks themselves are part of a
minority (the population of people who understand what encryption is
and implies, and know what governments are proposing enough to form an
opinion on whether crypto should be regulated or not).

Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`